SSilhouette, on 21 August 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:
.
No problem at all. You're assuming we know all there is to know. Which of course we don't. Your deductions remind me of people who deduced the world was flat because the horizon looked flat. How do we know they exist? Hmm... I'm tempted to tell you to get an Ouji board, and summon a demon up in your home; and wait. When the pots and pans start flying around the house and you find your pet cat suspened in the air by it's tail with nothing attached to it, then perhaps you'll believe the thousands of accounts through history of same or similar happenings.
These people afflicted are really suffering. So for the sake of a pragmatic remedy, we suspend belief or disbelief temporarily and offer whatever we can to ease their suffering...whatever works. Like medicine. There was a time too when bacteria didn't exist because nobody could "measure" them. Then came the microscope. In the future perhaps we can use things we don't even know about now to see other beings. Like tuning into a radio station we only have one channel for so far.
Well, without getting into it too much, no one really believed the world was flat. Sailors have known for thousands of years that the earth is not flat.
Most people, actually, knew that. 12.2 miles is the horizon, and sailors would notice the mast of ships being visible although the boat wasn't any longer, for a very long time. In essence, the whole, "people thought the earth was flat" thing is a phallacy.
Also, I have used, and continue to use Ouija boards fairly regularly as a party game, and to show people how they don't work. Just for s&g, try blindfolding someone and asking them to use it (hint: it all comes out as gibberish). I have never in all my years had one negative experience with a Ouija board, nor have any of the people I have used one with.
While I agree that science is not some oracle that has the answers to everything, it is the best tool we as human beings have for understanding causality.
The problem, as it were, with trying to explain something for which no evidence exists, by using evidentiary terms, is that you have to find external validation for something that is by and large an internally held belief. Or to be less prosaic, trying to explain something which has no physical prescence, by using terms which describe the physical world, is, by definition, impossible. To say that demons are energy beings that feed off of energy, but some type of unknown energy that can neither been seen or measured, falls into the realm of myth, not fact.
Edited by Maestro, 21 August 2012 - 05:59 PM.